38. More on Stationary Sets Stationary sets play a central role in several areas of set theory. In this final chapter we address some of the issues dealing with stationary sets. The Nonstationary Ideal on ℵ1 The question of considerable interest is whether the ideal INS on ℵ1 can be ℵ2-saturated. By Theorem 37.16, the saturation of INS follows from MM, and thus is consistent relative to a supercompact cardinal. This can be improved: Theorem 38.1 (Shelah). If there exists a Woodin cardinal then there is a generic model in which the nonstationary ideal on ℵ1 is ℵ2-saturated. Proof (sketch). The model is constructed by an RCS iteration (up to a Woodin cardinal), as in the proof of Theorem 37.9, iterating the forcings described in (37.5), for those maximal antichains for which the forcing (37.5) is semiproper. An argument similar to the one used in the proof of Theo- rem 34.8 shows that in the resulting model, INS is saturated. Combining this result with Steel’s Theorem 35.21, it follows that the consistency strength of the saturation of INS is approximately that of the existence of a Woodin cardinal. In contrast to that, the consistency strength of the precipitousness of INS is only that of the existence of a measurable cardinal (Theorems 22.33 and 23.10). A σ-complete ideal I on ω1 is ω1-dense if the Boolean algebra P (ω1)/I has a dense subset of size ℵ1. Clearly, every (nontrivial) ω1-dense ideal is ℵ2- saturated. The following result (that we state without proof) shows that the consistency strength of “INS is ω1-dense” is exactly the existence of infinitely many Woodin cardinals. Theorem 38.2 (Woodin). The following are equiconsistent: (i) INS is ω1-dense. (ii) AD holds in L(R). 696 Part III. Selected Topics The saturation of the nonstationary ideal implies (almost) that the Con- tinuum Hypothesis fails: Theorem 38.3 (Woodin). If INS is ℵ2-saturated and if there exists a mea- ℵ δ1 ℵ 0 ≥ℵ surable cardinal, then 2 = 2 (and hence 2 2). Note that the construction in the proof of Theorem 34.8 yields a model in which for some stationary set A, the ideal INSA is ℵ2-saturated and the Continuum Hypothesis holds. Saturation and Precipitousness By Theorem 23.17, the nonstationary ideal on κ is not κ+-saturated, for any κ ≥ℵ2. The proof of Theorem 23.17 yields a somewhat stronger result: + κ If κ and λ are regular cardinals such that λ <κ,thenINS Eλ is not + κ -saturated. Theorem 38.4 below shows that the saturation of INS Reg is consistent (and not particularly strong). It remains open whether for a regular κ+ ++ uncountable cardinal κ, INS Eκ can be κ -saturated. Let κ be a regular cardinal and let α<κ+.Thecardinalκ is α-Mahlo if the order of κ (as defined in Chapter 8) is at least κ + α. (Thus 0-Mahlo means weakly inaccessible, 1-Mahlo means weakly Mahlo, etc.) Theorem 38.4. + + (i) Let κ be an α-Mahlo cardinal, with 0 <α<κ .IfINS Reg is κ - saturated then κ is a measurable cardinal of Mitchell order at least α in the model Km. (ii) Let κ be a measurable cardinal of Mitchell order α, with 0 <α<κ+. + There is a generic model in which κ is α-Mahlo and INS Reg is κ - saturated. Proof. Cf. Jech and Woodin [1985]. For (i), see Exercise 38.1. By Theorem 23.10, the existence of a measurable cardinal is sufficient for the construction of a generic model in which the ideal INS on ω1 is precipitous. κ+ The construction generalizes to obtain the precipitousness of INS Eκ ,for every regular cardinal κ. For the precipitousness of the entire ideal INS on κ ≥ℵ2, more than measurability is needed. For instance: Theorem 38.5. The following are equiconsistent: (i) INS on ℵ2 is precipitous. (ii) There exists a measurable cardinal of Mitchell order 2. Proof. Cf. Gitik [1984]. For the lower bound, see Exercise 38.2. The consistency strength of the precipitousness of INS on κ ≥ℵ3 is more than o(κ)=κ+. In [1997], Gitik calculated the exact strength for successors or regulars, and nearly optimal lower and upper bounds for inaccessible κ (in both cases, it is the Mitchell order between κ+ and κ++). For successors of singulars the consistency strength is in the region of Woodin cardinals. 38. More on Stationary Sets 697 Reflection Let κ ≥ℵ2 be a regular cardinal. A stationary set S ⊂ κ reflects at α<κif S ∩ α is stationary in α (see Definition 23.5). We shall now discuss briefly to what extent can stationary sets reflect. First we consider the property “every stationary set S ⊂ κ reflects (at some α<κ).” This implies that κ is either (weakly) inaccessible or the + λ+ successor of a singular cardinal, because if κ = λ with λ regular, the set Eλ does not reflect (see Exercise 23.4). Let κ be an inaccessible cardinal. If κ is weakly compact then every stationary S ⊂ κ reflects (Corollary 17.20). If V = L then the converse is true as well: If every stationary set reflects then κ is weakly compact (Jensen [1972], Theorem 6.1). Following Mekler and Shelah [1989], let us call κ a reflecting cardinal if there exists a normal ideal I on κ such that for every X ∈ I+, {α ∈ κ : X reflects at α}∈I+. Every weakly compact cardinal is reflecting, and since 1 being a reflecting cardinal is a Π1 property (see Exercise 38.3), every weakly compact cardinal is a limit of reflecting cardinals. Theorem 38.6. The following are equiconsistent: (i) There exists a cardinal κ such that every stationary S ⊂ κ reflects. (ii) There exists a reflecting cardinal. Proof. Mekler and Shelah [1989]. A cardinal κ is greatly Mahlo if κ is α-Mahlo for every α<κ+.IfV = L then every reflecting cardinal is greatly Mahlo and a limit of greatly Mahlo cardinals (Mekler and Shelah [1989]). Thus the consistency strength of “every stationary set reflects” is strictly between “greatly Mahlo” and “weakly com- pact.” Now let κ be a successor of a singular cardinal λ. The property “every stationary set S ⊂ λ+ reflects” is a very large cardinal property. On the one hand there is this consistency result: Theorem 38.7. If there exist infinitely many supercompact cardinals, then there is a generic model in which every stationary set S ⊂ℵω+1 reflects. Proof. Magidor [1982]. + On the other hand, λ implies that there exists a stationary subset of λ strong that does not reflect (Exercise 38.5). As λ holds in the core model K + Kstrong + then if (λ ) = λ , λ holds in V as well (with the same square se- quence) and one concludes (by Theorem 35.19) that if λ is a strong limit singular cardinal and every S ⊂ λ reflects then there exists an inner model for a strong cardinal. This has been extended by Schimmerling and others to show that the consistency strength of this reflection property is more than the existence of a Woodin cardinal. 698 Part III. Selected Topics Now consider the question of what is the largest possible extent of re- flection. Let us recall (Definition 8.18) that S<Tmeans that S reflects at almost all α ∈ T .IfS<Tthen o(S) < o(T ) and one may ask whether it is possible that S<Tholds whenever o(S) < o(T ). This is possible for κ = ℵ2: ⊂ ω2 By Magidor’s Theorem 23.23 it is consistent that every stationary S Eω reflects at almost all α of cofinality ω1. For κ>ℵ2 it is impossible that S<Twhenever o(S) < o(T ). If µ<λare + ⊂ κ regular cardinals such that λ <κthen there exist stationary sets S Eµ ⊂ κ ∈ and A Eλ such that S does not reflect at any α A (Exercise 38.7). Thus let us restrict ourselves to reflection at regular cardinals. Definition 38.8. A weakly inaccessible cardinal κ satisfies full reflection if for every stationary set S ⊂ κ and every stationary set T ⊂ κ of regular cardinals, o(S) < o(T ) implies S<T. Obviously, the property is meaningful only if κ is at least a (weakly) Mahlo cardinal. The consistency strength of full reflection for cardinals in the Mahlo hierarchy has been established by Jech and Shelah. For instance: Theorem 38.9. The following are equiconsistent, for every n ≥ 1: (i) There exists an n-Mahlo cardinal that satisfies full reflection. 1 (ii) There exists a Πn-indescribable cardinal. Proof. Jech and Shelah [1993]. See also Exercises 38.8 and 38.9. If κ is a large cardinal such as measurable, strong, or supercompact then there is a generic extension in which κ remains measurable (strong, super- compact) and in addition satisfies full reflection (Gitik and Witzany [1996]). Stationary Sets in Pκ(λ) By Theorem 8.28, the closed unbounded filter on [λ]ω is generated by the ω <ω sets CF = {x ∈ [λ] : x is closed under F } where F :[λ] → λ.Thus ω in many applications one considers the space [Hλ] and stationary sets are ω those S ⊂ [Hλ] such that for every model (Hλ, ∈,...)thereexistsanM ∈ S with M ≺ (Hλ, ∈,...). When κ>ℵ1,thesetsCF do not generate the closed unbounded filter on Pκ(λ)astheset{x ∈ Pκ(λ):|x|≥ℵ1} is closed unbounded and does not include any CF (which contains a countable set). A generalization of Theorem 8.28 yields the following description of the closed unbounded filter: it is the filter generated by the sets CF and the set {x ∈ Pκ(λ):x ∩ κ ∈ κ} (Exercise 38.10; see also Exercises 8.18, 8.19 and 36.17).